UN needed to approve Western aggression against small states

The defense ministry of Libya promised to retaliate in case Western forces attack the country. On March 18, the UN Security Council approved the use of military force against Muammar Gaddafi. Russia and China could veto the decision, but they preferred to abstain from the voting and let the aggressor off the leash.

The latest resolution from the United Nation means that this organization is just an institution for approving the aggression of Western countries against small states. It is not incidental that Western media outlets evaluated the UN's approval of the no-fly zone above Libya as a permission for conducting air attacks against the Libyan governmental forces.

Gaddafi's troops occupied the city of Adjabiya and promised massacres in Benghazi, the stronghold of the Libya opposition. The UN Security Council gathered for a special meeting to rescue the Libyan civilians.

Imam Bugaighis, a spokeswoman for Libyan rebels, publicly stated that she was very happy about the UN's decision.

Now that the UN has decided to take all necessary (i.e. military) measures to protect Libyan civilians, one shall assume that the West will attack air defense systems in the country first and foremost. Both NATO's combat aviation and naval forces are expected to take part in the operation.

The news to use military force against Colonel Gaddafi was not a surprise. Several Western countries, including France and Britain, publicly acknowledged that the so-called rebels were the only legitimate force in Libya. The West took the rebels under its protection. Gaddafi has become the official enemy of the international community. As long as Gaddafi promised to establish law and order in Benghazi, the West decided to pass from words to deeds. Otherwise, Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama would look like miserable political clowns.

For some reason, the West has forgotten that the king of Bahrain also suppresses mutinies with the help of his associates from Saudi Arabia. Strangely enough, the West shows absolutely no intention to help the civilians of Bahrain.

The Americans do not feel the anxiety to participate in the intervention in spite of the fact that they sent a couple of aircraft carriers to Libya's shores. Why would America play the role of aggressor if Sarkozy and Cameron are willing to do all the dirty work? The French and the British do not want to act alone either. They need the company of Arab states. First off, it goes about the monarchies of the Persian Gulf. Most likely, the French will find the support of the UAE: there is a French air base in the country. In addition, the West has been working actively with the administrations of Egypt and Tunisia in a hope to get them involved in the Libyan conflict.

Dr. James Lindsay, Senior Vice President at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that it would be harder to stop Gaddafi now than a week ago. Tanks and artillery will have to be destroyed. The task will have to be conducted by combat helicopters, strike fighters and unmanned aircraft. Other military analysts believe that one would need ground forces to destroy Colonel Gaddafi.

There is one thing clear: without the American support the attack against Libya will cost a lot. Gaddafi has tens of anti-aircraft systems which can undermine the triumph of Western forces. In 1986, Gaddafi ruined America's aggression against Libya with the help of S-200 Vega systems. Nowadays, Gaddafi has as many as four divisions of S-200 complexes. MiG-25 fighters can also cause trouble. It is worthy of note, though, that NATO has been practicing a lot in Iran, Bosnia and Yugoslavia, whereas Gaddafi's previous military experience took place 35 years ago.